Sometimes I don't know how lawyers keep from laughing and cursing. If I were in court and my opponent pulled one of those weird loopholes out on me I wouldn't say to the judge "objection, your honor"; I'd just look over to the other bench and say "fuck you man" and then walk out.

Freshman year, I was in Chicago with a school group and we sat in on an appellate case with the Seventh Circuit, some financial something or other. Those were the most boring hours of my life and I was afraid they'd arrest me if I pulled out my phone and it made a noise so I just sat there. Halfway through, something happened (to this day I don't know what) and all of a sudden one of the justices started talking to us, a bunch of students, and just said "come on, they're kids and they're not even stupid enough to buy that, right?" That's all I remember from that entire day we spent sitting through financial appeals.

Haha.

One of my favorite lawyer stories that I've ever heard was told to me by an awesome lawyer from west Texas. He recounted the following from one of his cases:

Lawyer: Your honor, I object.

Judge: On what grounds?

Lawyer: I don't know... but it just don't seem right.

Judge: Sustained.

I'm not sure you should believe him...

Neither am I, although he said the name of the judge. Great story in any case.

I'd just use gif references during a case and I'd get kicked out...

Public universities only get a small portion of their funding from the state.

If public schools can get vouchers, then public universities can decide make guests they are renting their field to abide by certain rules.

Like I said, your devotion to the first amendment is highly selective.

Or rather, if religious schools can get vouchers.

@Putin,

Public universities are state institutions. If they choose to get funding from other places, great, but they are and act as institutions of the state. If you disagree, let me ask you: would you be OK with mandatory chapel at a state university? You know, since it gets so much of its funding from other places, it's not like an establishment of religion, or anything, right, and the first amendment shouldn't apply?

No, of course you wouldn't (and neither would I). The law is clear, and the courts consistently have been as well: the first amendment applies to public universities.

As for me -- I am not in the least inconsistent in my devotion to the first amenmdent. In virtually every case (I can't think of an exception) where a genuine controversy exists in the law -- for example, a case reaches the Supreme Court -- I take the side of expanded free speech. I doubt you can adduce a single instance where I opposed the more expansive reading of the free speech clause of the first amendment, and if you can, it will only be by creating absurd non-positions that only betray an ignorance of such basic categories in the law that no judge or court would ever take them seriously (such as arguing for an application to genuinely private parties).

Public school universities make lecturers sign agreements claiming they will not voice certain opinions, like support groups on the State's Department list of "bad groups".

If they are legally allowed to do that, then they can make conditions on rental agreements.

Unless racially abusing people is one of those special protected opinions while everything else isn't. Which seems to be the case these days.

"Public school universities make lecturers sign agreements claiming they will not voice certain opinions, like support groups on the State's Department list of "bad groups".

"If they are legally allowed to do that, then they can make conditions on rental agreements. "

That would be an interesting case. I'm not aware of it having been filed. Are you?

The free speech doesn't just cover speech, it also covers establishment, and you sir are not devoted in the least bit to the establishment clause, as you've said over and over you defend instances in which people are subjected to coerced religious indoctrination at events like high school graduations at public institutions, which is functionally not different than mandatory church service.

*the first amendment

I assume you mean the first amendment? Anyway yes -- I went back and added "the free speech clause of" to one of my uses. I see I missed the second. I value the establishment clause too, but I do disagree with where the Court has taken it, and I certainly would never claim that I support the most expansive readings of it.

No, but challenges to the patriot act are notoriously non-existent.

Then spare me the odes to the first amendment.

Well -- I'd support such a challenge if somebody mounted it.

Anyway, it's shocking that Danny Snyder hasn't come around and changed it yet. The league should step in. Enough advertisers threatening them publicly would probably do it.

It's Dan Snyder. Are you expecting him to be a) intelligent, or b) flexible?

There are clearly some very good people at U of Minn.

How if "Redskins" were shortened to "Skins" (as it already is on occasion in casual usage) and a burly shirtless construction/steel/other-heavy-type worker (or even football player) flexing his muscles were subbed in as the mascot? Would this suffice? Or would it be "too much a reminder of the old name that we didn't like and clearly an act of non-contrition that won't fly"?

As for the Cleveland Caucasians, even as a joke, it's an intriguing idea (which I, as a white male, have no objection to). Except that I suspect it would get shortened to "Caucs" in pretty short order, and then you'd get a whole other set of complaints.

Err, this would not fly very well. It's an interesting combination of a racist name and a group of people that at one time were a big-time hate crime thing.

The Cleveland Cocks would be more appropriate.

But it's not racist, right? Chaqa said so.

http://www.clevelandfrowns.com/2014/04/redface-has-another-big-day-at-the-ballpark-in-cleveland/